Do we need the government to protect us from companies? In a word, yes. The United States has a long history of protecting citizens from industries that it feels would, unchecked, harm citizens. The Sherman Antitrust Act became law in 1890, and it is still the law today. Based on Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, the law declared illegal contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of interstate and foreign trade. The law, however, was not enforced until the administration of Theodore Roosevelt. TR went after what were called "trusts" or collections of companies from the same industry. There were beef trusts and railroad trusts and steel trusts and so on for every industry. With their powers combined, they could exercise a great deal of influence on the marketplace. They could also exercise a great deal of influence on politicians. TR put a stop to this and became heralded (and defamed) as a "trust-buster." In 1914, Woodrow Wilson created the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to help oversee the enforcement of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Sherman was used to break up Standard Oil and Ma Bell (until the 1970s, one company – AT&T – controlled the American telephone system). As recently as the 1990s, the Sherman Antitrust Act was invoked in the United States' case against Microsoft, where the company was accused of using business practices that illegally attempted to shoulder competitors out of the marketplace. In the case of trusts, the government felt that the consumer was being denied a fair market due to the power of a business or businesses.

The government also implements health and safety standards to protect the physical well-being of U.S. citizens, as well as their wallets. Again, we go back to the early 1900s, when the meatpacking industry used unsanitary practices in the production of beef. Selling spoiled meat that had been disguised by additives, grinding up different kinds of animals and selling it as beef, and workers losing extremities in machinery was not uncommon in the meatpacking industry. While capitalism provides a maximum of efficiency and innovation, its downfall is that social welfare is unnecessary unless it affects the bottom line. The journalist Upton Sinclair wrote his book The Jungle in an attempt to demonstrate how poor the working conditions of workers in the meatpacking industry were. Instead of focusing on the plight of the workers, however, the nation focused instead on the unsanitary practices (Sinclair later remarked, "I aimed at the public’s heart and by accident hit its stomach"). New regulations were put into place requiring minimum standards for food sanitation.

The government still does both of these things today. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) exists, ostensibly, to ensure that drugs which enter the market are safe for human beings. Laws exist now which regulate prices; for example, there are caps on how much a power company can charge for its services. Cigarettes are required by federal law to carry a Surgeon General's warning. The FDA requires food manufacturers to list the ingredients of their food on the package and provide accurate nutrition information. Without question, the government regulates industry. Anyone who is under the impression that the government has nothing to do with corporations is sadly mistaken. The United States' economy is not purely capitalistic.

What, then, should be done about fast food? Michelle, Kristi, and I had a small debate yesterday about who is to blame for the obesity described in Fat Land. Michelle believes that the fault lies with the individuals who choose to eat so much junk food that they become overweight. Personal responsibility is, of course, always a factor in things like these. I have nothing but contempt for smokers who are engaged in lawsuits against cigarette companies claiming that these companies somehow "forced" people into smoking. Then again, if these companies misrepresented the health risks involved in smoking, then that's another thing. The consumer relies on advertising to be a source of information in making a decision about whether or not to buy something. If that advertising is deceptive, then the consumer cannot make a well-informed decision.

Fast food, though, has become a staple of our lives. Michelle took issue with the assertion that obesity strikes the poor more than anyone else, insisting that it costs more to go to McDonald's than it does to go to the grocery store and make food. This is true: a value meal at McDonald's costs at least five dollars, whereas I can go to Kroger and buy ingredients to make several days' worth of fruit salad for the same amount. Also at issue is the fact that the poor, invariably, work. (Though Ann Coulter derides "working families" as families in which no one works, this is not the case: they do work, but they do not make that much money.) People would rather pay for convenience than health, and the only way – so far – to have convenience and low prices is to utilize junk food. What if these people live in an area where the closest store is a 7-11? What if they don't have the time to devote to making meals at home? Their demand for convenience food is more inelastic than middle-class people living in the suburbs, if quantity demanded is plotted against healthfulness of food: they will demand fast food no matter how bad it is for them.

Certainly the government should not ban fast food outright, but perhaps a little more information is in order. Michelle told me that of course everyone knew how bad fast food is. Do they? I wonder about this assertion. Perhaps they know that it certainly isn't healthy, but do they know that a single Big Mac value meal contains all the calories you need for an entire day? That's really unhealthy! The public needs to be educated about the nutrition facts behind McDonald's food, and books like Fast Food Nation and Fat Land are trying to do just that.

Michelle contends that there is a component of personal responsibility at work, here: rather than immediately react to the problem with more government regulation, we should consider the choices of the people who are obese. Have they not chosen to eat this terrible food? There is something to this, for Fat Land doesn't just indict fast food purveyors for offering unhealthy products; rather, it chastises the American culture of eating. Most of us were probably taught as children that it's a sin to waste food: eat what's on your plate, then eat some more. Where did this attitude come from? From our parents, and where did they get it? From their parents, who were more than likely children of the Depression, who learned the hard way that food is precious and every bit of it should be consumed. Now, we live in a time of food excess, and we finish eating when all the food is gone, not when we're full.

I contend that fast food has transcended personal responsibility and has become a staple of life. Since it is so ingrained in American society, something must be done to actively change American attitudes toward fast food. Cigarettes are a matter of personal choice, and yet they have warning labels. Could fast food carry warning labels, as well? The government has a compelling interest in keeping its citizens healthy, and while it cannot tell them, "Don't eat this food," it can say, "I hope you know that the food you're eating is very bad for you." The government should educate people on the dangers of fast food in the same way it educates them on the dangers of cigarettes and alcohol.

Telephones, automobiles, railroads, electricity – these have all become staples of American society, and they are all regulated by the government in some way or another. We know from history that, given the opportunity, the food industry will cut corners to decrease its overhead, since maximizing profit, not providing the most social justice, is the goal of capitalism (read Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser for more information on how food companies cut corners). It is not too much to ask for minimum nutrition requirements in companies that make up such an important part of our lives.

But perhaps this regulation won't be necessary. McDonald's announced in March that it was eliminating "Super-sized" fries and drinks due to health concerns. Kristi suggested that this might be the result of the recent documentary Super Size Me, and it very well could be. Recall that the film first appeared at the Sundance Film Festival in February: plenty of time for McDonald's to decide that the phrase "super size" would develop negative connotations overnight. Companies work quickly when negative publicity is involved.

As Kristi pointed out, there is no single cause that we can point to in order to explain the cause of obesity. One cause is the creation of the culture of food; another cause is our desire for convenience; still another is the marketing of cheap, unhealthy fast food. All of these reasons are cited in Fat Land as causes of the obesity epidemic occurring throughout the world.